UK Says You Can't Have Some Kinds Of Porn, But It Determines What Kinds

from the confusing-much? dept

The Register is covering the rather confusing porn guidelines in the UK, which add certain types of porn to the list of what is illegal to possess. Plenty of countries have laws against possession of child porn, but the UK is extending that to cover images that are "pornographic, grossly offensive and portray activity that threatens harm to life or limb, or involves sex with a corpse or animal." Of course, some of that is open to interpretation -- and TheReg points out that plenty of movies that were approved for viewing in the UK contain footage that probably meets those criteria. The question, then, is, if you have an offending still image from a legal UK video, do you run afoul of these guidelines? Also, oddly, the law says that you're okay if you delete an image -- but not okay if you can retrieve it after deleting. While, undoubtedly, this law is well-intended, it seems to be quite vague and it's difficult to see what public benefit it serves. If the concern is about the harm done in the making of such porn, why not go after the pornographers, rather than the possessors?

Filed Under: porn, uk

Australian ISP Agrees To Filter... Just To Show How Stupid It Is

from the that'll-show-'em dept

Australian politicians have been pushing to censor the internet for years, with its latest initiative being the most extreme and most ridiculous. Of course, even though each and every past effort by the Australian government has failed miserably, they always seem to think that this time it will be different. At least the largest Australian ISP thinks the government is out of its mind. The CEO of iiNet has agreed to sign up for the filters, but only to collect hard data in order to prove to the government "how stupid" the plan is:

"They're not listening to the experts, they're not listening to the industry, they're not listening to consumers, so perhaps some hard numbers will actually help. Every time a kid manages to get through this filter, we'll be publicising it and every time it blocks legitimate content, we'll be publicising it."

Good for them, though it seems unlikely to work. In the past when similarly ineffectual filters were demonstrated, Australian officials just interpreted it to mean they needed to pass stricter laws.

Filed Under: australia, filters, isps, porn, regulations
Companies: iinet

Why Is Andrew Cuomo Pushing ISPs To Use Spyware On Everyone's Internet Traffic?

from the political-ambitions-over-common-sense dept

We've already covered NY AG Andrew Cuomo's ridiculous crusade to get ISPs to censor content in a misguided attempt to stop child porn. Obviously, stopping child porn is a good goal, but Cuomo's approach actually makes the problem worse and sets a dangerous precedent. First, rather than actually tackling the root of the problem, Cuomo simply demanded that ISPs block any site that he and a group he supports consider to be child porn. Of course, they have no legal requirement to block them (section 230 of the CDA was written to make it clear that ISPs are not at all liable here), but Cuomo got around that by promising to shame publicly any ISP that didn't implement his plan. This is the lowest of the low of political tricks, and it would simply be lying. An ISP may be quite committed to stomping out child porn, and could recognize that Cuomo's tactics actually make the problem worse, by not targeting the actual pornographers -- and Cuomo would still publicly splash their names across the news as not wanting to stop child porn.

In fact, a recent look at the details of Cuomo's highly publicized campaign found that Cuomo clearly exaggerated the extent of the problem for political benefit, forcing ISPs to block all of Usenet, despite 99.9997% of the 3.7 billion available Usenet articles being perfectly legitimate content. But that's not stopping Cuomo. In fact, he's going even further.

He's been sending ISPs a presentation from a company called Brilliant Digital that's offering a "deep packet inspection" system that could scan every file sent across an ISP's network and try to determine if it was child porn. Yes, Cuomo is suggesting that ISPs spy on every single file sent over their network now, 4th Amendment be damned. Brilliant Digital even claims that its system can trick users into sending files unencrypted, so even those who send encrypted traffic could be spied upon. Cuomo claims that he's not endorsing the product, but just thought ISPs would be interested in looking into it. Yet, given his heavy handed tactics earlier in this effort, it's pretty clear what message he's sending.

But why Brilliant Digital? If the name sounds familiar, it's because the company has an extremely sketchy past that has been touched on before. It was, effectively, one of the first surreptitious "adware" installs, back in the day, when it tried to secretly distribute a "legit" P2P file sharing system that would sit on top of the popular Kazaa and give you the option of paying for songs rather than just straight file sharing them. The software was downloaded and secretly installed on one million computers, before it was revealed.

This is the company our politicians want spying on every packet sent across the internet?

Not only that, but Brilliant Digital is also (of course) rather aggressive on the patent front, suing Streamcast for daring to make use of a hash system for trying to identify music tracks being shared over a P2P network. So we have an Australian spyware company that wants to scan every bit of traffic and identify it (even if it's encrypted), and it's being pushed by a US politician who has a history of trying to publicly shame companies into doing his bidding, even if it involves lying about them. And, the whole damn thing almost certainly violates the 4th Amendment.

Last week, we wrote about Paul Ohm's suggestion that we should create a stronger privacy law that outlawed deep packet inspection, as that would pretty much stop any attempt to break net neutrality without requiring special net neutrality laws. It's worth noting that such a law would also have the added benefit of making it doubly clear to Cuomo that such a program is quite illegal.

Filed Under: andrew cuomo, deep packet inspection, isp blocking, objectionable content, porn
Companies: brilliant digital

Australian Internet Filters Have No Real Opt-Out; Only Opt-In To Fewer Filters

from the can-i-have-my-porn-license-please? dept

We've covered the long history of Australian politicians looking to set up their own censored internet "to protect the children" (of course). The plans have changed over time, but the end goal has always been the same: to force ISPs to block a list of sites provided by the government. In the latest incarnation, the plan supposedly included an "opt-out" option, where a web surfer could specifically ask to opt-out of the filters (effectively asking someone to sign up for a "porn-surfing license"). That, on its own, might scare some people off, but now it turns out that the opt-out isn't really an opt-out. Instead, it's just opting you in to a somewhat less restrictive blacklist. Once again, this idea of mandatory filtering out of "bad" sites on the internet sets a dangerous precedent. Whoever has control over that list has tremendous power, and it will be abused. On almost every "filter" list we've seen sites that certainly don't belong there, and this will be no different. If a site is doing something illegal, then charge whoever is responsible for the site. Trying to deal with it through filters and blocklists is both bound to fail and dangerous to free speech.

Filed Under: australia, filters, porn, regulations

What Kind Of Filtering System Thinks W3C Is A Porn Site?

from the one-that-won't-stay-in-business-long,-hopefully dept

We've all heard stories of various online filters that block perfectly legitimate sites as being "porn" or something else objectionable, but sometimes there are such extreme cases that it makes you wonder what people are thinking. Apparently, some ISPs are using a filtering system that believes the W3C site should be blocked as porn. W3C, of course, is the body that manages standards for the web. It was founded, and still run, by the creator of the World Wide Web, Tim Berners-Lee. Any filtering system that classifies the W3C as porn doesn't deserve to be in the filtering business. Hell, they barely deserve to be on the web at all.

Filed Under: filtering, porn, w3c

Hollywood's Enforcer Also In The Porn Business?

from the just-on-the-side dept

MediaDefender, one of the companies that the entertainment industry uses to spoof files on file sharing networks and track down the IP addresses of file sharers has found its business to be in serious trouble lately -- and it appears that one quiet side aspect of its business is now being exposed as well. While the company tries to position itself on the side of good, claiming that it's fighting evil "pirates" and even helping law enforcement go after criminals, TorrentFreak has uncovered that the company has quietly been making a bunch of money by running some porn sites on the side, while also uploading files to file sharing networks pushing people to other porn sites, hoping to cash in on affiliate fees for getting people to sign up for porn subscriptions. It sounds as though everything the company is doing is perfectly legal, but it seems to tarnish the company's desired image in certain circles as being an upstanding citizen just trying to prevent piracy.

Filed Under: copyright, file sharing, porn
Companies: mediadefender

Comcast Caves To Cuomo

from the seems-like-extortion dept

Remember last week, when NY Attorney General Andrew Cuomo threatened Comcast with a lawsuit, if it didn't start blocking access to a list of "objectionable" content? It was quite clear that Cuomo's threat had no legal basis -- as the law is quite clear that, as a service provider, Comcast is not responsible for what happens on the network -- but Cuomo stated (just as clearly) that he would sue anyway, and associate Comcast in peoples' minds with objectionable content. Unfortunately, it looks like the bullying threat worked: Comcast has agreed to support Cuomo's proposal. There's simply no legal basis for this, and it opens up a seriously slippery slope in saying that ISPs can block access to "objectionable" content. Yet, apparently, it's just not worth it to stand up against politicians who want to paint you as a supporter of child porn, even if that's completely ridiculous.

Filed Under: andrew cuomo, isp blocking, objectionable content, porn
Companies: comcast

Andrew Cuomo Gloats Over Getting AOL To Do What It Already Does

from the nice-work dept

We've already pointed out how ridiculous it is for NY Attorney General Andrew Cuomo to be pressuring ISPs to start blocking news groups and access to certain websites with "objectionable" content. Doing so actually makes the problems Cuomo is trying to fix worse. That's because he's not actually going after the source of the problem, meaning that it will continue to exist and just be harder for law enforcement officials to track down. This is pure political theater with Cuomo getting his name in the headlines for pretending to solve the problem, when all he's really done is get some ISPs to sweep the problem under the rug -- where it's only going to fester more.

Even more ridiculous, however, is the latest announcement from Cuomo, gloating over the fact that two more ISPs, AT&T and AOL will join with the ISPs from the original announcement and cut off access to newsgroups and objectionable websites. In the case of AOL, this is especially ridiculous since it's already done this for many years. Declan McCullagh even got AOL to admit: "We have not changed any policies or procedures as part of today's announcement."

Of course, "we're doing what we've always done" doesn't make good headlines for ambitious politicians.

Filed Under: andrew cuomo, isp blocking, porn
Companies: aol, at&t

California To Copy NY's Bad Plan Forcing ISPs To Block Sites

from the the-great-firewall-of-america dept

The next time US officials complain about other countries blocking websites and censoring the internet, just point them to the actions of various publicity-seeking US states' Attorneys General. We've already mentioned NY AG Andrew Cuomo's incredibly misguided plan to force ISPs to block certain websites and newsgroups. While officially in the name of stopping child porn (an excellent goal), the plan is open to widespread abuse. First, it targets the ISPs, rather than the actual perpetrators of child porn. Second, it involves a secret list that won't be available for review to make sure it doesn't include perfectly legitimate content. Third, ISPs are already "over-blocking" additional content to avoid getting in trouble -- meaning that plenty of legitimate content is also being blocked. Fourth, those who really want child porn will simply use other methods to find it -- and it will be harder for authorities to track those new sources down.

With all that going against the plan, wouldn't you know that California's AG is claiming that the NY agreement doesn't go far enough. While the NY agreement only covers Verizon, Time Warner and Sprint -- California Attorney General Jerry Brown is saying all ISPs should have to do the same, as well. Unfortunately, it seems like this type of "non-solution" is appealing to politicians who don't understand the actual issues. It makes them look like they're sweeping child porn off the internet, when all they're really doing is blocking legitimate content while making it more difficult to find those actually engaged in child pornography.

Filed Under: andrew cuomo, blocking, california, censorship, isps, jerry brown, new york, porn

How Cuomo's Anti-Child Porn Efforts Will Make The Child Porn Problem Worse

from the driving-it-underground dept

In discussing NY Attorney General Andrew Cuomo's success in getting ISPs to block a list of child porn sites and newsgroups, we noted that it wouldn't do a damn thing to stop child porn. The reality is that it may actually make the problem worse. It turns out that these efforts to make it harder to access child porn have serious unintended consequences: basically, those involved with child porn still have plenty of ways to access it, but it's much more underground than before. It makes it that much harder for law enforcement officials to track down those actually responsible and to stop child porn at its source. Again, it's a noble goal to try to stop child porn, but making ISPs block access to sites isn't the answer. And, the fact that those ISPs are admitting that they're blocking more than just the list makes those unintended consequences even worse. What Cuomo has done is make it harder to stop child pornography while also opening the door to others censoring the internet.

Filed Under: andrew cuomo, isp blocking, porn